Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated
Date: 2005-07-26 16:44:57
Message-ID: 16516.1122396297@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

I've committed changes to add a "rolinherit" flag to pg_authid as per
discussion. The pg_has_role function now distinguishes USAGE rights
on a role (do you currently have the privileges of that role) from
MEMBER rights (do you have the ability to SET ROLE to that role).
A couple of loose ends remain:

* Should is_admin_of_role pay attention to rolinherit? I suspect it
should but can't quite face going through the SQL spec again to be sure.
This only affects the right to GRANT role membership to someone else.

* The information_schema needs another pass to see which pg_has_role
usages ought to be testing USAGE instead of MEMBER. I think most of
them should, but in and around applicable_roles and enabled_roles
some more thought and spec-reading is needed.

I'm planning on doing some documentation work next, and was hoping
someone else would look at the above items.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2005-07-26 16:52:11 Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated
Previous Message Matthew T. O'Connor 2005-07-26 15:45:19 Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2005-07-26 16:52:11 Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated
Previous Message Matthew T. O'Connor 2005-07-26 15:45:19 Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends